No problem with lower revenues? This guy is totally out to lunch. How someone with a philosophy like that got to be governor of a state is beyond comprehension.

1:36 pm October 30, 2011

Anyone observingT wrote:

Congress: Think about what your turning a blind eye to' Protesters cant pay witholding while jailed, missing work. Legal expenses may force more foreclosures. Mass arrests would be shooting ouselves in the foot. Was it Elanor Roosevelt that said ......youve got to give them something or theyll take everything? Movement, if we want to call it that, seems to be growing. Im glad im not the one[s[ that have to make the decisions, thats what we pay you for. However, as an American citizen, I am sad to say that from what Ive seen in the last few years, Ive more to fear from our own police than the terrorists they are protecting us from. bewildering.

1:56 pm October 30, 2011

Anonymous wrote:

There is the evidence of Perry's problem with lower IQs

3:18 pm October 30, 2011

Anonymous wrote:

Doesn't ANYONE understand what a feedback loop is?!

Your house thermostat senses house temperature and 'feeds-it-back' to the control so that when the desired temperature is reached, the control shuts off the furnace.

A business stays solvent by sensing the real time profit and cutting costs if the profit is becoming a loss.

Municipalities, government, education--all have very delayed responses to sensed outcome, and are thus rotten at managing financial 'temperature.' The only feedback for these entities is either bankrupcy or elections. Try regulating your house temperature by sensing the ambient temperature once every 4 years.

3:58 pm October 30, 2011

Nothing wrong with lower revenues... wrote:

...if you have the courage to spell out how you are going to make the deep cuts on Social Security and Medicare for existing retirees (and those who will be retiring). I believe Perry has already said that Defense should not be cut, so balancing the budget will rely on pretty much eliminating all discretionary spending (good bye NASA, FAA, FBI, CIA, as well as favorite targets like education, energy, the environment), which still results in a deficit. So Social Security and Medicare will require deep cuts. Saying that reducing the size of government is fine, as long as he has the courage to spell out exactly where and who those cuts will hit. Then let the voters decide.

4:58 pm October 30, 2011

srk wrote:

again, with emphasis...we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. baseline spending is killing us as well as unfunded entitlements. get the jobs going again and revenue will take care of itself. kapiche?

8:56 pm October 30, 2011

Anonymous wrote:

Remember

Surplus=revenue>spending

1:17 pm October 31, 2011

Kevin wrote:

@srk - CORRECT - we have a spending problem...we don't spend enough in this economy. Simple economics says that spending increases money which improves the economy. For every dollar you (or the government) spends, multiples of others have that dollar to spend as it flows through the economy. Drastic cuts to government spending in a bad economy will only crush the economy further. The government has to step in and spend because people and corporations (interchangeable by definition right?) are not spending their money. This gives the appearance that spending will increase while revenues remain flat...leading to wider deficits but in fact the increased spending will put more money in people's pockets...which they will spend...which circulates through the economy...and gets taxed multiple times and returned to the government (and then some). Oh, and we'll end up with safer bridges to cross in the process.

Keep in mind...all those that compare government spending to their own spending responsibilities. If you spend more, you go in debt...but you don't have a revenue source that is tied into your spending. The government does have a revenue source tied into its spending because its spending can lead to greater income to itself.

The Republicans are spreading the "spending problem" propaganda in order to support their long sought after ideologies.

2:06 pm October 31, 2011

Jim wrote:

Sure, it's fine - with the rich like Perry! This is the tone-deafness for which the GOP is renowned, and why no one who cares about social justice or even garden-variety fairness has any truck with Republicans. From Romney's house renovation to Perry's "so what" spending program, to Bush's moronic smirks as his approval rating tanked, the Party of Arrogance and Ignorance lives on.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.